All of my points are hypotheticals. You could, you might, you should be able to. Everyone who disagrees with my points says 'no, that's definitely not how it works'.

I'm exploring new routes for hackers, I'm not saying they're there. You're saying they're definitely NOT there when you have no reason to say so.

Even so, check page 330:

CYBERWARE 2nd paragraph
In addition to wireless functionality, most cyberware devices are equipped with a direct neural interface (DNI) that allows the user to mentally activate and control their functions. They can also be linked to other cyberware implants.

I can link some definitions if you need me to, but in addition, in that sentence means that, on top of the wireless functionality that ALL cyberware has, most have DNI.

Right, but the argument is based on the assumption that there is no pathway. There's no evidence to support that assumption. Until someone turns off the wifi access, the pathway is there. This means that, by default, the pathway exists and access is there. I'm not saying, by any means, that there's no defense against it, I'm just saying that defense is not the default setting of active cyberware.

Two examples:

An NPC hacker with a 6 logic would, more than likely, have his cyberware locked into DNI where possible and behind defense where not.

An NPC enforcer with a 2 logic, more than likely, would not have his cyberware's wireless access locked as it most likely would not occur to him that the possibilities for tampering or even configuring were there. Now if that enforcer has a hacker on his team, that's all thrown out. I'd even go so far as to say, base your determinations for default wireless security on the team member with the highest logic score. If they're high enough, they know that a network, like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link.

Compare it to a person of lower than average intelligence using today's internet technology. They don't know to take precautions against identity theft, because if they, by default, took those precautions, there would be no identity theft.

If that's how you want to run things, feel free. That's an awful lot of GM character handholding just to defeat one hacker tactic.

"Alright, let's just assume every possible safety measure has been taken, just to make sure you're not put into danger."

Sure, I wouldn't make players say they put their seatbelts on every time they got into a vehicle, but I'd make sure they said it if they were in a hurry.

Why? If they have the habit of putting on a seatbelt, it becomes automatic, you do it without really thinking about it.

Now, if they don't normally wear seatbelts, I can see making note for possible accidents or firefights.

The intent in your statement is the same as in mine. If they never say they put their seatbelts on, it's only going to come up when there's a reason they should have.

So......your whole argument is based on the theory that the designers are morons and the default settings ignore the public safety or the safety of their users?

Sorry but any cyber that has Availability R or F will default to the safest mode possible.
Any cyber that's failure could immediately result in the loss of life (eyes, ears, limbs, etc) will default to the safest setting.

I'll buy that maybe a datajack will have wi-fi on by default, it is a communication hub after all. But lord above, I know I don't want someone's cybereyes suddenly filling up with spam while they're driving to work b/c the drek heads at Fuchi left the wifi enabled.

All it'll take is one good lawsuit, or heck, one powerful suit to be incovenienced or harmed, and that feature will be gone-dooby-gone.

Firstly I'll ask you nicely not call me, or imply that I am, ignorant or stupid.

Secondly, if you'd have read the things I posted before, you'd see that it was those very safety features that I was suggesting be exploited. You would also see that I explained that jamming would merely interrupt the wireless connection, not the function of the cyberware.

If you're going to claim I'm wrong to the point of stupidity, please read and understand what I've said first.

Again someone stating opinion phrased like fact.

As to the safety features, that's exactly what I'm saying could be exploited. All it should take is a signal to the cyberware that continuing function would harm the user and it shuts down.

Its nice to have a logical structured gameworld described as character handholding. But I´m not demading explicit statements on the issue of seatbelts at all, so maybe I don´t understand how realistic roleplaying works.

If you had unterstood my last post, you´d have found a reason why your exploit will seldom work. If your GM lets himself be bullied into accepting your viewpoint, fine. I´d even live with that attitude from my GM, as I know the rules well enough to give the right answers. But forcing the players to know what their characters would know, even if they don´t care for the matrix rules, is, in my opinion, stupid. Statement directed at anyone with that attitude to playing and having fun, not you personally.

Jamming would do more than limit functionality... If you cant tell your cyberlegs to duck for cover you could die, if you cant tell your finger to fire the gun you could die, if you cant tell your eyes to switch to thermal when the enemy drops smoke you could die, if you cant tell your wired reflexes on you could die, if you cant.... I could go on forever but hopefully I have made a point that jamming should be of great concern to anyone with cyber. In addition, what if someone ran into a signal overlap? (like two people using the same frequency RC cars or similar remotes for TV's, ect, ect...) Yes, I would suspect that wireless of the future be much more secure that it is now but why would anyone take the chance that some malfunctioning microwave in the local stuffer shack making you walk into traffic.

I would hope the boss of said enforcer with a logic of 2 would know better than letting the meatbag/bullet shield with WiFi enabled cyber guard him. Or for that matter anything that is important to him: his son/daughter, drug/BTL shipment, ect...

Yes, you are correct. something WiFi enabled could be set into diagnostics mode and that would screw with its user. I would hope that new shadowrunners would hear as much from Fastjack/shadowland. I would also hope that Corp. Security would hear as much in training classes. I would also hope that regular everyday people would hear as much from the local/national/international news.

"This just in from our reporters in the field from Desert Wars 2.0, (insert nation here) is reporting 1500 casualties when a jammer was activated disabling over 65% of its fighting force"
"In addition, reports are coming it of an explosion in downtown Seattle when Lonestar was called in to disable a bomb. Preliminary reports shot that the officer disabling the device set it off when his cyberarm was put in diagnostics mode. This information was gained from the arms blackbox diagnostics computer"
"Also, a local woman has filed a lawsuit against Stuffer Shack for keeping her awake due to frequency interference from a malfuctioning microwave and her cyberears"

Nope, logical extrapolation. If governments have gone to the trouble to regulate the sale of a product, you can be sure it has been the subject of sufficient lawsuits to be equipped with proper failsafes. The "don't use a hairdryer in the shower" warning sticker people would make be all over this like a fat kid on candy. Market forces alone should force that anyway after the third cop in Podunk, Iowa gets hosed cause his gear had crappy security and they don't keep a hacker on staff to tell Jethro to disable WiFi.

Yay! I love when everyone can be right. I mean, I was the most right , but points countering my points ended up being possibilities and reccomendations as well.

Well discussed all around.

If it's got an F availability, it's illegal, which means that there's unlikely to be ANY governmental regulation or required safety features.

Anyway, the point is moot now as it's been confirmed that hacking the commlink gives access to a good deal of cyberware.

Or it could mean that it was built by a backroom cyberdoc/mechanic who tosses out restrictions put on him by the government, which, given the setting, seems much more likely than stolen government tech.

Believe what you want. That's the wonder of RPGs.

Seperately, I never considered our discussion here an arguement and I therefor don't see anyone as a 'winner' or a 'loser'. I merely stated here that, in different ways, we were all right, I was just -most- right, and usually the emoticon next to that statement would have illustrated the toungue in cheek manner in which I meant it, since indicative tone of voice is completely lacking in text. Elsewhere I said that I felt vindicated, which I did. Vindicate means to uphold or justify by argument or evidence, which is appropriate in this situation. Childish though, I may be. Not because of this, as you suggest, but just because I am.

The FAQ said that it can be hacked through the commlink anyway. I'm fairly sure that my game group will follow the FAQ to the letter.

If you mean this line from the faq, make sure to remember that you can only go through the commlink to get at the cyberware if the person has slaved his cyber to his commlink. If not, then it is skinlinked or slaved to something with a DNI.

I think these signal ranges are taking into acount most day to day interferance or situations like cyberware and whatnot.

And easier still if you're in a hammock in a van running hot sim.

Or using your 3-4IP in AR, now that the FAQ has deemed it a viable tactic...

I don't think I'm a freak for failing to give hackers ready access to other folks' central nervous system.

Nothing here prevents the hacking of comms and the associated weapons & gear.

The simple fact is that security by isolation is pretty darned easy to implement and should be the path taken whenever continuous connectivity is not necessary.

No one suggested taking control of anyone's central nervous system, as far as I saw.

If you're going to assume 'security by isolation' as the default in cybernetics, you should also assume it for all other systems, which makes your campaign non-hacker friendly.

I for one assume 'security by isolation' whenever that makes sense. Yet the Hacker in my campaign still often finds uses for his skills in a combat.

---

Absolutely, positively no runner or runner's opposition will keep a device accessible by wireless if it offer them no advantage but allow a hacker to harm them.

P. 304 : Turning it off.

Most cyber's wireless function offer you no advantage whatsover in combat so there is no reason not to shut them down. Why wouldn't you? To give the opposition's Hacker a fair chance? No one is that much of a moron.

A runner with cybereyes for exemple should keep the wireless function shut down at all time except for maintenance or for occasionnally connecting them to the commlink in order to broadcast to a team mate what you are seeing.

The rest of the time ; shut them down.

Obviously, some like the Smartlink needs to stay open. But why would you connect it to your commlink? Because it's more secure? It's not, no matter how good your security is because a hacker can access it from afar. Keep it independant on a signal of 0. It's unlikely a Hacker will get within 3 meter of you, and if he is that close and goes for your smartlink he is a dead idiot.

The only reason to link your smartlink to your commlink is if you have mounted your weapon on a smartfiring platform and are shooting it from 400 meter away.

The rest of the time ; signal 0.

That's common sense for players. Why would NPCs be stupider?

Same for security systems ; If you are broacasting something, anything, it's because you want at least someone to access it. If there isn't, then it's only common sense to keep the system as isolated as you can.

For example, is there any reason for your security cameras to be accessible from someone outside the building they are protecting? No? Then make every reasonable effort to isolate that system from the outside.

It's just common sense.

That being said, a Hacker can still be a powerful force in urban combat.

Recently we had a chase ; could the Hacker hack the vehicle in pursuit? No. Obviously the opposing rigger had disconnected any possibility of outside interference with his commands. Duh. There is no real reaon to keep your onboard computers accessible from the outside if you are bad ass rigger. What do you gain by doing this? Only the possibility to get your vehicle hacked from under you. If you are going to do that, you might as well be using a drone.

But the innocent bystanders vehicle, on the other hand... Honest citizens relying the grid system to drive their vehicle and avoid traffice jam are certainly hackable. Hacking the car of Mr. and Mrs. Wong to throw them at the opposition isn't exactly a nice thing to do but hey, better the Wong than you!

Similarly, the hacker could have gone for the traffic light to give an edge to his own driver.

Plenty of possibility for the creative hacker. But it's too much to ask that the opposition be stupid enough to make the hacker's life easy by letting him hack things that can be safely be kept turned off.

Well, well. So we agree ; almost everybody would know these basic precuations!

Almost any opposition the PC come up against will either have a Hacker covering them, or have come up against hacker in the past or at least have Hackers working for their organizations that give them security briefing every few months or so. Even lowly security guard will know of these procedure through these briefings and beside it will be company policy anyway, subject to disciplinary sanctions if they are not followed.

Those who would be clueless on the subject are essentially civilians. With low logic and who have never been victim of a hacker related crime (or know someone who has), if I follow your post.

Like Mr and Mrs Wong in my example.

It's not that many persons, when you think about it.

---

And it's a good thing too. It's kind of boring otherwise. Hacker have to be more creative if the opposition is not a bunch of clueless dolt who seem blissfully unaware that hackers even exist and that maybe some precautions should be taken.

Yes. People. Civilians.

I conceded that civilians can be clueless.

I gave an example of a fictional couple of civilians, the Wong, that ended up having their car hijacked and used as a weapon against pursuer by a ruthless hacker in my campaign.

But the opposition will all be clued in.

The opposition.

Starting with the guy with 200k of cyberware installed. He has heard of hacker for sure.

Unless 80% of your runner's time is spent picking on clueless civilians, I'd say most of the people he comes up against know about Hackers.

Corp security. Crime syndicate. Rival runners. Special Forces. They know.